User talk:MPF/archive2

Hi there! I've heard you speak about the problems of the category system before, so please drop by at Wikipedia:Categorization policy? Thanks. Radiant_* 10:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories

Hi, I noticed that you got yourself into a little hot water for flattening out Category:Botanists. Unfortunately it looks like somebody decided to be bold without actually asking any botanists why they wanted an all-inclusive category, which was bad form on their part. Please note that actually I am very supportive of you on this front - that Category:Botanists must contain all the botanist articles and that it was bad form for them to do so. Please do not take anything that follows as in any way an attack :)
 * A compromise solution for Category:Botanists

I also think that there was a problem with your flattening - the CFD vote was "no consensus to delete". What you have done is tantamount to deletion and therefore in breach of the principle that categories should only be deleted if there is consensus to delete them. There was no consensus to create the "by nationality" subcategories - but there doesn't need to be! Presumably because subcategorisation is seen as information-producing (which no doubt it is - the fact that an American botanist is categorised as such means that he can be found by browing through the subcategories of "American people" - such categories make WP very data-rich indeed), no consensus is required to create a category, including "by nationality" subcategories. Therefore, although you were "reverting a change for which there was no consensus" you were still in breach of policy (effectively ignoring the CFD vote - what would be the point of CFD if, after it was decided not to delete a category, the person who nominated it just emptied it and decategorised it?) and although it was a reversion, you weren't reverting vandalism - you were reverting an information-adding change.

However, that information-adding change did make it harder for people like you to actually find a slightly different type of information - a type that is cleary useful for you in producing Wikipedia. Here is a suggestion that hopefully will suit both the botany editors and the categorisors.

I have unilaterally restored Category:Botanists by nationality to being a subcat of Category:Botanists. I know this was unilateral on my part but I think it is important to do this because this category survived CFD and that has to be respected, at least until or unless it fails on CFD. I have posted a more expansive warning message on it. I have also posted that message onto Category:Botanists. I am about to post it on all "Foowegian botanists" subcategories. It explains why it is important for you botany editors to keep all botanists in the same place. Hopefully that will be more respected by categorisors than a simple "Do NOT subdivide this category" message.

Under certain circumstances it is permissible to dual list in both a category and its subcategory. I believe that it is appropriate here. Botany editors have a consensus to keep all botanists in Category:Botanists. Many categorisors believe that any Foowegian biographical article should be accessible by starting from the "Foowegian people" category and browsing. Neither of these views is daft, so here dual categorising may be an appropriate solution.

The one remaining problem is when a reader/editor unaware of all the trouble there has been over this issue randomly comes across an article that includes at the bottom "Categories: Foowegian botanists | Botanists" and thinks to him or herself "ah, this page should be removed from Category:Botanists since it is already in Category:Foowegian botanists". It is highly unlikely that he or she will check either of the categories first.

Therefore I propose a "Botanist template" for all botanist articles. At the bottom of the article there would be a short explanation like: "All articles about botanists are listed in Category:Botanists to help with taxobox production. Please do not remove this article from that category, even if it is also in a subcategory".

As a side note: in the far future, the template could automatically put all botanist articles into "Category:Articles used for taxoboxes" or similar, for your use, and the only stray articles in Category:Botanists (left for regular browsers) would be ones for botanists without national subcategories (or, if an auxillary categorisation like "Category:Botanists active in Japan" etc under "Category:Botanists by location of research" or similar was used then stray articles might include any which didn't fit both categorisation).

How does this suggestion sound? I hope it suits all parties, and I think it might be more effective at keeping all botanists in one place than the current rather uneasy situation. Best wishes, you're clearly doing a lot of good for the TOL! :) --VivaEmilyDavies 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll quote you here, in case anybody is trying to follow this conversation: "Thanks; that looks an excellent suggestion. My only thought is whether it might become redundant once this promised 'see-through' categorisation is implemented (I've no idea how that'll work, so don't know if it will affect the suggestion or not).

Could the following also be added to the botanist template please:

The standard Binomial nomenclature#Authorship in scientific names|botanical author abbreviation . is applied to plants he described.

Thanks - MPF 19:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)"


 * Well it seems like the pair of us have something of an agreement. Did you find my warning messages on the category pages acceptable? I'll see what I can do about that template :) VivaEmilyDavies 19:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion! I'll see what I can do and hopefully the bad blood will die down :) --VivaEmilyDavies 20:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was going to explain what I was up to. The botanists are temporarily fractured because I am about 60% of the way through sorting them. I have decided that since I am sorting them, it makes sense to do the following:
 * Where the botanists have gone
 * Every single botanist I come across I will try to find the abbreviation for. That abbreviation is then mentioned and the botanist is moved to Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and listed on List of botanists by author abbreviation (have a look at this list - will you find it a useful resource when it is done?)
 * I also wanted to take the opportunity to class the botanists by their interests as listed by ipni.org (this may not be permament but I wanted to "grab" as much information as possible while doing this, because I don't think anyone will ever be bothered again!)
 * If a particular location of research is listed I have tried to list them by that too.

The result is that classing them has been slow-going. But you will be able to find all the ones either originally listed (or now that I have put them in) with an abbreviation at the aforementioned category and list. Very sorry for the hold-up. VivaEmilyDavies 19:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Hamish Marshall, I would have come across him by now, and I am sure that I haven't. In addition to double-checking the categories, I have tried searching the entire WP for "Hamish Marshall" and found nothing. I don't know what's happened to him but he seems to have gone completely AWOL. I'm flummoxed, I'm afraid. Also, yes, I'm glad that I didn't copy the typo but I was trying to be careful - my idea was that it would be pretty neat to be able to link in the categories from "Plants of type X" of "Flora of place Y" to a bunch of botanists who studied them. Mycologists fooled me because they are on "Mycology" not "Fungi" (those two need merging really) - I couldn't find anything similar for the other ones, although "Lichens" and one of the others didn't seem to have a category to link to. I suspect that because a lot of botanists were distincly unspecialised, I have ended up "category-swamping" a few of them and therefore it is unlikely that the categorisation scheme will hold for long. My hope is that if/when it does get broken up, people bother to extract the information that the categorisation provided. Actually keeping "Botanists studying fungi" distinct from "Mycologists" is probably a good idea for now, since those in the former category were often rather part-time mycologists and the in the latter rather more full-time. Hence if my categorising gets reverted, nothing is lost from category:mycologists. If people can bear my categorising then it'll be time to think about merging them. Do you know how accurate IPNI's categorisation is? It ought to be very accurate (they ought to know all the botanist's discoveries!) but on the other hand I have sometimes e.g. had to add in "studying algae" when the text lists the botanist as mainly studying algae and IPNI doesn't tick it! VivaEmilyDavies 19:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're all sorted. You don't have to use the template - you can just include the sentence suggested in your note to me and manually categorise under Category:Botanists with author abbreviations. Also, could you have a look at the remnants of Category:Botanists? Most of them are "tele-botanists", hobbyists and there may be a few pre-Linnaeans (though I tried to move them out to their own subcategory to avoid clutter - the vast majority in Category:Botanists are recent) as well as botanists more interested in plant microbiology than taxonomy so who probably won't have an IPNI abbreviation. However, sometimes the IPNI abbreviation is hard to find if you only have the name to work from (their search engine isn't the best!).
 * Botanists

Seeing as you know more than me about this, I could actually do with a little bit of advice: (1) Do you think the fact IPNI lists "mycology" as an interest should be regarded as sufficient to class a botanists as a "mycologist"? If so then I'll try to make sure Category:botanists studying fungi is merged into Category:Mycologists under the title of the latter. (2) Can you think of equivalent short names for the other categories e.g. Category:botanists studying ferns? At the moment the "Botanists studying..." clutters up the bottom of the article pages. (3) Could you think of a better way to phrase e.g. "Category:Botanists active in Australia" and others? I actually put in there a lot of botanists who worked in Europe, but dealing with material brought back from Australia. Would "Category:Botanists of Australian flora" be an improvement? Can you think of any better ideas? I asked the same things to Gadfium, who spotted the mycologist thing (a cock-up of mine that had a lot to do with the illogical split between Category:Mycology and Category:Fungi). Thanks! VivaEmilyDavies 14:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Found them - they're in Category:Paleontologists (U.S. spelling!) - but (1) the people in there mainly studied animal fossils, especially dinosaurs, and (2) it's already been split by nationality. What do you think about Category:Paleobotanists?


 * My dictionary and various other sources suggest the following: Category:Algologists, Category:Lichenologists, Category:Pteridologists, Category:Bryologists (like you suggested) - I think it's worth giving up on Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes, and am considering putting it up for deletion. The problem is that it is so broad, nobody will ever find anything useful in it! Does it represent a field in its own right? If so what is its name? VivaEmilyDavies 18:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was in a great quandry with this image. The tree is a old tree in a well establshed field hedge on Angelsey far from any obvious plantings or country houses. I.e it looks like a an establshed native tree of some age. Equally it isn't U. campestris and U. glabra is the only other elm ever recorded anywhere near here. In flower, (and out of leaf) it went through Clapham Tutin and Warburg's key to U. glara. However, I too have real concerns and I will revisit the tree in leaf in a few weeks and check it out again. Velela 23:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wych elm flower....or not

Please feel free to move the image to a more neutral position till I can get a confirmed ID on it. I will change the attribution in Commons too where the image is mastered. Velela 23:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tree is now in leaf and I have posted a life sized image onto Wikipedia Commons (see link image). The closest I can get is U. laevis but the leaf venation doesn't work. My references for non native trees is poor and any advice welcomed. Thumb|200px|right|Unknown Elm foliage Velela 13:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

thumb|left|200px|Elm tree @ Llandegfan I have a rather poor photo of the whole tree taken in the winter (see thumb-nail) which may help. Velela 09:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

MPF, you are a great contributor to the botanical articles, but I do not understand where you ever learned that "family Poaceae" or "order Poales" are correct. The title is part of the proper name, the same as when writing "Mr. Smith" or "Saint John" and is therefore always capitalized in such situations. It is not a curiosity followed by some and not used by others, but simply proper English. In cases where the taxon title has no connection to a proper name, it would not be capitalized. Thus, one could say: "...this family of trees includes the redwoods" or "...sunflowers are classified in a family called Asteraceae". As a further note, it is sometimes the case that the taxon will be used as a noun in apposition. In such cases, I believe it is correct not to capitalze, although a comma should be inserted to clarify: "The daisy is classified in the plant family, Asteraceae." but "The daisy is classified in the Family Asteraceae" (both are correct) - Marshman 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Caps for proper names

Are you sure it is hoax? I found this metasequoia in Chinese Plant Name's data base. Pixeltoo 18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * fr:Metasequoia honshuenensis
 * I proposed to delete the honshuense taxon from the french wiki. I saw many other Araucaria taxons discovered by Silba in New Caledonia. Are they all factitious ? Pixeltoo 14:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed the introduction of Genévrier cade. Thanks. Jeantosti 06:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Juniperus

Hi. I've got some redlinks coming up in a couple of moth articles - Corydalis and globeflower in Silver-ground Carpet and perennial wall-rocket in Garden Carpet. I'm not sure if herbs are your thing but do you think it's worth you or someone else doing articles for these? Richard Barlow 10:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redlinks

Thanks Richard Barlow 10:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey MPF. Got two articles here that are close, almost the same: Golden Leaf tree and Goldenleaf Tree. One is for the genus and one is for the species. Do you think they should remain separate or be merged? I think they should be separate, but I don't know if others of this genus also have this name or not. I had kind of the same problem at Strelitzia reginae, the Bird of paradise flower and its genus Strelitzia. Anyway, take a peek if you are interested and thanks for your time! --DanielCD 19:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Golden Leaf tree

The tree was pointed out to me by a landscape gardener in Side (Turkey) as Thuja orientalis (she called it : the thuja tree). Since this is a synonym for Platycladus orientalis, it took it for granted that this was the right name. However, I'll change it to the Juniperus hybrid. I took about 400 photos of plants and trees while I was there. I'm trying to identify them but, as you can understand, this is not an easy task. I just uploaded to the Commons three photos of Pinus pinea, but one could be Pinus nigra. The same for Acacia dealbata. It can't do any harm checking them out or even checking once in a while my 'User Contributions" in the Commons. Thanks. JoJan 14:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mistaken identities

I doubt very much that these are Acacia melanoxylon, because this species has phyllodes and not cladodes (at least, according to my books). Besides, everyone in Turkey called this tree a 'mimosa', i.e. either Albizia julibrissin (which it isn't) or Acacia dealbata. Or am I completely wrong ? JoJan 19:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Turkey pics

If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at :Template talk:Did you know|the section's talk page.
 * Did you know?

Trying to ID this "plant" so I can put a cat on it. Not having much luck. Any ideas? --DanielCD 15:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Molohiya
 * Wonderful! Another phantom plant IDed.--DanielCD 15:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Had to share this. This website: [phuketabalone.com/products-molocheiya.html] says that "It's very stink but good for bowel." --DanielCD 15:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could move any pertinent plant info to the plant page and leave the fiber info to it's own page. See if "jute" gets a lot of google hits. perhaps it deserves its own page. --DanielCD 16:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC) That could work too. --DanielCD 16:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That way looks best to me. People may want to read about the fiber without haveing to sort though plant details and vice-versa. --DanielCD 16:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to put you into overload or anything, but I found two new cypress articles you may want to look over sometime in the future: Taxodium ascendens and Taxodium mucronatum. --DanielCD 16:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello MPF! Please see commons:User talk:MPF --Franz Xaver 23:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ruta chalepensis

I made this mistake myself, and had to have it explained to me. Wikiepedia style is to use imperial measures and SI units; hectares, being neither, are therefore not used. The text about the trees comes from the arboretum's own Web site; hardiness of species is something that, as a long-time gardener myself, I know can't be pronounced upon with certainty. Mel Etitis (User talk:Mel Etitis) 17:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hectare


 * Ah, you mean that I've been hoodwinked? I did check "hectare" (I'm not a complete mooncalf), and found that it is indeed not an offical SI unit, so I just assumed that he was right about the rest. Pish.
 * On the copyright front, I did originally question the person who created the page, and he admited to lifting the text, but said that he was editing it away from the original. I checked a couple of times, and he was indeed doing that, but then I let it slide.
 * My suspicion is that the arboretum wouldn't object to our article; should I contact them to ask? Mel Etitis (User talk:Mel Etitis) 17:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks keeping an eye at Plantations Your knowledge and time are appreciated. On another note this is from manual on style “When describing areas of agriculture, forests, parks, wilderness, etc., hectares are an acceptable (not mandatory) alternative to square kilometres.”   Most of the info I see is in hectares and is easier for some  to quickly understand. Again thanksKAM 13:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

why did you move syrian rue to harmal? i've never heard it called harmal before, and that isn't the scientific name. a google search yeilds just over 4,000 hits for harmal, but they're almost all for tell harmal, which has nothing at all to do with the plant. syrian rue gets over 11,000, and peganum harmala gets almost 16,000- perhaps it should be there- but i can't imagine why it should be at "harmal". . . --Heah (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * syrian rue
 * ok, sounds good. perhaps i'll move it.  thanks!!  --Heah (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't change the pronunciations of the moons unless you know what you're doing. Most of the ones you've changed are now wrong. You have Europa rhyming with "papa", for example. There was also a long discussion about Titania, for example, contacts with the Royal Shakespeare Society, etc; the middle syllable is tahn, not tan. If you have specific objections to the transcription system, let's discuss it so that we can make systematic changes. kwami 22:28, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
 * incorrect pronunciations
 * I do know what I'm doing! The previous pronunciations were ghastly, if used making them sound like a terminally ill asthmatic with bad bronchitis, with all those 'h' sounds at the ends of the syllables. And yes, Europa does rhyme with papa - MPF 22:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Europa's one of the names where there is universal agreement on the pronunciation. Look it up in any dictionary: It does not rhyme with "papa". And again, there are no [h] sounds indicated at the ends of the syllables - check out the pronunciation key. (P.S. I'm putting our conversation in one place, so it'll be easier to follow.) kwami 22:41, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
 * "And again, there are no [h] sounds indicated at the ends of the syllables" - yes there are, numerous ones (or were, before I removed them!). I'd suggest removing all these unpronounceable asthmatic noises and replacing them with SAMPA or IPA text, which is far more accurate. - MPF 22:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking letters for the sounds they represent. You didn't change the th in Thelxinoe, did you? Same principle: th and ah are digraphs. The represent single sounds. There is no "h sound" in ah.
 * Not at all; to me (and I suspect many British people) ah and oh represent sounds somewhat similar to (slightly less heavily voiced) German ach and Scottish loch respectively. I certainly wouldn't pronounce 'father' as 'fahther', nor 'bone' as 'bohne'. - MPF 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But you do pronounce them that way. Give me one example of an English word where "ah" is pronounced like German "ach". Again, READ THE PRONUNCIATION KEY! Why is that so difficult?
 * But like I said, if you don't like the transcription system, let's discuss how to improve it. As it is, you're just introducing errors.
 * However, if I haven't represented vowel distinctions that you make, that's another matter entirely. I have an aw and dew in Polydeuces, even though I pronounce them as ah and oo, because that is (to the best of my knowledge) the British pronunciation. I went by the OED whenever I could on these pronunciations. But conflating different vowels is not helpful. Come on, do you really pronounce "pope" like "pop"? (That's what I'd assume if you rhyme Europa with papa.) kwami
 * SAMPA is obsolete, and Wikipedia is phasing it out. The problem with the IPA is that any pronunciation you give will be dialect specific. You're welcome to add IPA pronunciations to your heart's content. (One person already has, just didn't finish the job.) But the cross-dialectical pronunciation guide is there for just that reason: it's cross-dialectical. Plus, it's much more accessible for most of our readers. Most US college students don't know the IPA, and although it's not that bad in other countries, that's still a big chunk of our audience. kwami 23:12, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
 * That's no reason to make US college pronunciation guides required use for the rest of the world - MPF 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, why are you (mis)correcting it? Why not just delete it entirely? Like I said, add all the IPA you want. Better more info than less. Besides, these aren't US college pronunciation guides, they're what you'd find in most any traditional Englsih-language mythological glossary, Usonian or British. kwami 23:48, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

"Why not just delete it entirely?" - I think that's probably the best idea of all, remove all the pronunciation guides altogether. That way, people can use their local dialect uninfluenced by any prescription from another part of the world where pronunciation is different. If they're to be kept, at the very minimum, different letters should be used to indicate the sounds of 'a' in 'father' and 'o' in 'bone'; I'd suggest 'ar' and 'oe' respectively. - MPF 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you expect people to pronounce the names in their own dialect if they don't know how to pronounce them at all? The whole point of a pronunciation guide is to tell you how to pronounce words you don't already know. Some of these names are very obscure, and took me a long time to track down. But you're right: we shouldn't impose a particular dialect. If your dialect isn't represented for any of these moons, then yes, let's fix that. I've done my best to make them cross-dialectical, not just US pronunciations, but I can't catch everything. (So far you haven't given me any examples of where the pronunciation isn't correct for Britain.)
 * Okay, you don't like oh for IPA, or ah for IPA . (That's not pushing anyone's pronunciation, I guess you just don't like the look of it.) Oe like "toe" for the vowel of "pope" is fine -- just as long as we don't use the o of "pop"! As for ar, now you're pushing your dialect. We need two conventions for the vowels of "father" vs "car" (which is what ar currently represents). Aa is the only thing I can think of, but I wonder if ti-taan'-ya would really be more readily understood than ti-tahn'-ya. (ti-tan'-ya, of course, is wrong.) kwami 00:31, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yes, ti-taan'-ya does look a lot better (wish I'd thought of it myself!). You're right, 'father' and 'car' do have the same sound for me, but I can see they wouldn't for everyone. - MPF 00:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's reasonable. I can start making changes. But you know we're just going to get into an edit war with someone else who says that aa doesn't mean anything in English, and reverts them all back to ah, don't you?
 * Also, I'm not going to change sh or th just because they have an h in them - I think we need to stick to the English alphabet. I won't get to all the asteroids, either, so we'll end up with two parallel conventions: aa or ah for father, oe or oh for bone. kwami 00:54, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back. Other people have been working on the pronunciations, like The Singing Badger. Even if I'm the one who added the pronunciations to the moon and asteroid tables, they've contributed a lot, and should have a say in this. They might have reasons to object to oe or aa that I'm not thinking of. kwami 01:08, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Okay, MPF, Badger's fine with it. Take a look at the Saturn page's moon list and see what you think, before we redo all the moons individually. kwami 01:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did get to the asteroid tables. The individual asteroids haven't been changed, but I still removed oh and ah from the key. kwami 20:22, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Please check out Talk:Europa (moon) for a suggested solution. Peter Isotalo 13:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Slender Cypress-pine.jpg
 * Callitris

Hi Michael, Wonderful trees, mostly found in the parts of the world I love best, and host to a delightful variety of bird life. How could I not have pictures?

PS: I generally avoid uploading pictures to the Wikipedia these days, as I am damned if I'll release my best wildlife pictures under the GFDL and have them butchered and ripped off by all those pedia-clone parasite sites. Creative Commons non-commercial licence, no problem. I'm happy to release under those terms, or on "copyright, by permission" terms. Unfortunately, the powers that be here, for some reason never explained or justified and best known only to themselves, have decided that all uploads will be deemed to be released under the GFDL, and thus become anything but free. It was a really stupid decision and it makes me angry, but there is nothing I can do about it. (Except rant. Please excuse rant. This one really bugs me.) Anyway, since that policy decision, I no longer provide wildlife pictures here. Against my better judgement, I sometimes make exceptions for relatively commonplace images - trees, landscapes, and the like. This is one of them.

Best regards, Tannin 13:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Scrub Pine.jpg PS: you may find this one useful too. I am sure of the ID in this case. Or, if you prefer, I have C. gracilis/preissii cones, but young green ones. Not so bumpy. Tannin

Trying to reel in a species (cultivar?) name for Kimjongilia and his sister Kimilsungia. They are big Koran things, so I hope I don't step on any Korean toes. I put in a taxobox at Kimjongilia, but there's also a Korean theme box. Uncertain how to proceed and thought I'd seek your widsom. Got them down to the genus. --DanielCD 16:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Kimjongilia & Alluaudia/Didiereaceae

I removed the taxoboxes. I'm just gonna pretend that these two articles don't exist for the time being... Kimilsunhackhack... --DanielCD 18:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

'tis me yet again. I found another rediculously small article at Alluaudia (sometimes I don't know why people bother with what's not even a substub). It was categorized in family Didiereaceae (Conqt. syst.) which I researched in the new styetem and I think it's now Portulacaceae, but I'm not certain. You know, when people make tiny stubs like this, everyone on the Internet copies it from Wikipedia, and then when you do a search on it, all you get is wikiclone articles. --DanielCD 18:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at :Template talk:Did you know|the section's talk page.
 * Did you know?

No, I don't know what the picture is, unfortunately. Regards. -- WormRunner | Talk 00:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Lavender.jpg

Image:SalixBabylonica.jpg was taken in Shijiazhuang, south of Beijing in spring.--Fanghong 07:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * About Image:SalixBabylonica.jpg

Why did you take out the informations about the ancient ones? I foud these information in the book "Urania Pflanzenreich" 1992, S. 324. and made a redirect. Would be nice if i coud hear from you if you think thats ok--84.167.173.119 19:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Riesenmammutbäume in german WP

thumb|Mystery Flower and bee Hey, I caught this picture today of a bee on a flower, but I don't know what the flower is. I'm going to look it up, but I thought you might recognize it. It's neat because the bee goes underneath the stamens and the pollen rubs all over its back.--DanielCD 02:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mystery Flower

Some kind of Passion flower. --DanielCD 02:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Passiflora incarnata --DanielCD 03:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF,
 * GFDL on pictures

You want me to confirm that the pictures Myrica-gale-hanlig.JPG and Myrica-gale-hunlig.JPG are indeed published under the GFDL. I regret that I didn't make this fact clear, when I made the upload. It has been done now, and it is my honour that you find the pictures useful. Sten Porse (danish wikipedia)

Hi there,
 * Totara

I would have thought that someone as knowledgeable as you with respect to biology would be familiar with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things|Naming conventions. I've moved Totara back to its common name, which means there is automatically a redirect on the scientific name. dramatic 02:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (your reply copied here for continuity)
 * It's part of a project to move at least some plants over entirely to scientific names; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Scientific name page titles. It helps a lot with indexing at Category:Podocarpaceae in that it groups all species in the genus together. Over 90% of the species in Podocarpaceae don't have any common name at all; to have a small handful indexed separately by common name looks odd. Also, outside of New Zealand, you'd be very hard put to find anyone who has the faintest clue what sort of a thing 'totara' is. The scientific name is more recognisable at least as a scientific name and shows what its congeners are and are not. - MPF 10:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, then maybe this info should be added to the Naming conventions page. (does that need to be done by an admin)?dramatic 22:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

HI again MPF. I put some pictures at Sensitive plant that I'm beginning to think may not be the right species. The shepe of the fronds is a bit different and the stems are a lot more spiny. I was hoping you could peek at it. I may need to remove those pics if they aren't the right species. Very close though. --DanielCD 02:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sensitive plant

Here's a wild article for you. Want some info overload? read this one. I put it in Category: Gentianales and put a cleanup tag on it. --DanielCD 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Pachypodium

Perhaps in situations like this we could move the text to a (big) section in the discussion. Then write an article and nibble away at the text, moving what's useful into the new article. Then we could leave the dregs there in case anyone wants to refer to it. --DanielCD 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see the WP:TOL Talk thing. I keep learning more and more as I go here, and perhaps I can leave some of my questions there instead of messaging you all the time. That's a forum for questions such as these, eh? --DanielCD 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Be my guest - move it on.. I'm kind of a categorizing nut and I occassionally make a little error or two ;)--DanielCD 21:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been using the International Legume Database & Information Service, you can search species to find out the tribe and there is a big list of tribes and the species within them (this list includes all legume tribes- so you'd need to sift through it and pull out the Faboideae tribes). I was planning to work through the genera, then summarise the tribes at the end.--nixie 00:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Faboideae tribes

You renamed Series (botany) to Group (Botany) and then you removed all the material about series in the edit. What this really what you meant to do? Our article on trinomial nomenclature suggests that groups and series are different kinds of classification (groups are taxonomic and hierarchically classify related organisms; series classify for marketing).
 * Group (Botany)

Can you review your edits and explain what you were trying to achieve? Gdr 18:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that the article was wrongly named at Series (botany) because of the confusion with Series (Botany). But since it was about cultivar series, wouldn't it have been better to move it to cultivar series and leave the content alone (or else redirect and merge to cultivar)? Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a cultivar series? There are plenty of Google hits which appear to confirm the description at trinomial nomenclature of cultivar series being a form of classification which plant breeders use to market their cultivars. Gdr 19:42, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect at Series (botany) and moved Series (Botany) there. But what are we to do about the other kinds of classification? Two possibilities: (1) have separate articles at Cultivar series and Cultivar group; (2) merge all the material on cultivar classification into the cultivar article with redirects. Gdr 19:47, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


 * Yes, cultivar series appear to be a marketing device by the nursery industry, not a scientific classification. But I still think we should document it, especially because of the confusion with the scientific series. Gdr 20:11, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

This article has had a neutrality dispute tag on it for quite a while. I think it's a bit beyond me ken at the moment to puzzle it out, but I thought I'd mention it. I'm not quite sure what this fellow finds wrong. --DanielCD 19:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rosoideae and Sensitive fern==

Thanks for sharing that, about the binomial names. I would like to discuss these things more, but it's hard to tease out what has been decided and what's still being discussed. The wikiproject:Talk tree of life pages and other stuff is like a maze. But at the end, I think the binomial name is best for the titles because you can always redirect the widely used common names. It actually will reduce the amount of duplicate articles if people learn to use the binomials. You don't have to try a bunch of different names or capitalizations. Also: people may not type the binomials in, but they will copy and paste. I've seen many duplicate articles using two different common names or even caps in different places. --DanielCD 01:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think it is inappropriate to use scientific names except when necessary to the last. I must admit, I just moved this one because I saw it on a routine New pages patrol, but it has me thinking. I'm not a big biology/science contributor (I'm a little more of a physics guy myself), but I'm not an idiot in the matter either. I also understand the enormity of the discussion that has already proceded my move of the article. I simply used Sensitive fern because I discovered within the article that this seemed to be the common name; i also redirected Bead fern to that location, per the article. I think it would be a big misstep to rename all plants to their scientific name. The vast majority of Wikipedians I think would simply not like it, and no one who casually stumbles upon the site will like it. It's simply too big of an accident waiting to happen (misspellings would be a nightmare, if you get my meaning). And last, I'm just kind of talking to you about it here- I'm not dead set in my ways or assaulting you about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think I'm not involved enough to really put in much new material, I just wanted to tell you my two cents worth. Thanks for contacting me, --naryathegreat | (talk) 03:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Common names

It's not "promotion", my intent was not vandalism, and attacks against my age are childish. Dogwood (the band) should be included in Wikipedia, as they are a very influential Christian punk band. It seemed to me that the best way to add the band would be by adding a stub band page, adding a disambig page, fixing the link to the plant, and then fleshing out the band page. I apologize if I was wrong in these steps, but there's no need to be rude. Jpers36 17:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dogwood

FYI: The N.H. state tree is much more commonly call white birch than paper birch (http://www.nh.gov/nhinfo/tree.html) - DavidWBrooks 10:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * NH state tree
 * Good point about the link - I hadn't noticed that. My error! I will make the pipe fix. - DavidWBrooks 17:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am writing this note to avoid a revert war. I am sure that you are aware that common names for woods often do not reflect scientific taxonomy. You are absolutely correct in stating that what we woodworkers call "true" mahoganies (i.e. Swietenia spp. and sometimes Khaya spp.) are Meliaceae, not Dipterocarpaceae. However, the wood commonly sold in North American home improvement stores and lumber yards as "Mahogany" or "Philippine (sp?) mahogany" or "Mahogany plywood" &mdash; more properly known as "Luan" or "Lauan" in the trade and "Meranti" or "Seraya" outside North America &mdash; is wood from different Shorea species from Southeast Asia, much of it illegally logged in Indonesia. If you are not willing to accept the FPL's statement to this effect (under the "Mahogany" and "Meranti Group" sections in the first chapter of the Wood Handbook I had linked earlier), a Google search on "Mahogany Shorea" should rapidly convince you.
 * Mahogany & 'tree vs wood' naming confusions

My main objective is that people consulting Wikipedia be made aware that the commonly available so-called "Mahogany" is not a real mahogany at all. If you can think of a better way of putting that point across, I am all for it.

The fragrant Toona spp. and the related Cedrela spp., at least the ones I know of, are usually referred to as some kind of cedar: e.g. Spanish or cigar-box cedar for the American species and Australian redcedar for T. australis. I note that T. calantas is called "Philippine mahogany" in the species list in info box on the Toona page, but a Google search shows that it is also called "Philippine cedar" and "kalantas". I won't get into the "cedar" naming confusion, which includes not only Cedrus, but various genuses in the Cypress family as well as some Meliaceae. :-)

I would like to suggest:
 * Putting a note in the main or disambiguation Mahogany page about the misnomer, and maybe also in the.
 * Restoring the link to the FPL's Wood Handbook. It is a very useful and authoritative reference on woods (no matter our current dispute) which has been reprinted by different sellers, and has a link on the main Wood page.
 * Maybe putting "Philippine mahogany" under "Meranti", along with "luan", "lauan", "seraya", etc. Note that the Dipterocarpaceae page has a pretty detailed list of the different Shorea wood species, perhaps too detailed.

I will not make any edits until you respond to this message. We need to think more generally about how botanically incorrect common names should be dealt with on the List of Woods page. I think it's important to list them, as well as alternative common names, and to provide links to the correct species/genus/family page. Luigizanasi 22:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi the little message on Banisteriopsis caapi images is a warning to interested parties that the image might be deleted soon. We want it to be visible so that someone might either 1) Shout out that "That's my image, it's gfdl, don't delete!" or 2) go out and get new images. (By the way if you can obtain free images of this plant it would make me happy). So we don't want the images commented out. Thanks a lot. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 08:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The image deletion warnings, and why I reverted

Sorry, I saw Green Ash as the title, with the text referring to "Red Ash" (with no mention of Green ash), and Googling came up with roughly the same number (and quality) of hits for each. As there was nothing about the move on the Talk page, I thought it best to move back until more inormation turned up. Mel Etitis (User talk:Mel Etitis) 13:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ash

Thanks for your support. JoJan 17:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Adminship JoJan

Sure, change it. I'm not picky about names, and sometimes I just take the first one I see. I appreciate your reviewing my articles, keeps me on my toes. --DanielCD 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Goosegrass

With regards to your comment on RickBlock's page, you'd have my support. Let me know if you decide to take the plunge and need an nominator (though I suspect I'd have to get in line). Guettarda 20:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Adminship

My RFA Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated a picture that you have just posted to commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates COM:FPC LoopZilla 15:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * COM:FPC


 * New, colour edited version now online, and nominated... and I must photograph some of my bonsai trees! LoopZilla 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you caught my latest comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. If you missed it, i've found a huge resource on my favourite subject, what eats what! I'm keen to use this data but I reckon it makes my phagobox proposal critical, for use in both insect and plant pages. As you were the only one to comment on my original proposal, could I ask you to have a look at the prototype I've put into my normal guinea pig article, Ghost Moth and tell me if something similar would be OK for plant pages. I think I would go along the lines of putting these in genus rather than species pages (You'll remember I cited Foxglove Pug as an example of single species monophagy - this database rather surprisingly lists Brassica oleracea as a food plant for the species in Malta!).
 * Phagobox

As for separating monophagous and polyphagous species in the table, this seems riddled with pitfalls (the Foxglove Pug example proves this), but I will try and work around these. Identifying major pests is important as you pointed out and this is something I will definitely try to incorporate. Richard Barlow 12:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all useful as usual. I'll do all this (apart from the left-align which I don't know how to resolve either). On your general comments, I'm afraid the source makes no distinction between food plants in terms of how often they are eaten (or survival rates). If the list gets too big maybe a separate article can be done but I'm really rather keen to retain the data rather than a blunt "polyphagous". Maybe the phagobox revolution starts here - imagine a Human phagobox...hmm Richard Barlow 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for putting some thought into this. I'm starting to think putting this information into plant pages is horribly problematic. The HOSTS database allows you to search by plant as well as by insect. I tried putting in a few plant genera and got the following results for numbers of recorded Lepidopteran feeders: Betula - 2238, Salix - 2919, Quercus - 6213 (all returned too many results for them to be displayed). I still find this data fascinating but like you have said, lists of this size have limited relevance and certainly would have to go on separate pages if at all. Richard Barlow 30 June 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Could be - that picture was taken out of a series of about 200 hundred of a praire preserve taken for a project I did in 2001. I did wander out of the praire area itself – it's not impossible that I accidentally took some pictures of a non-praire plant and made a mistake later in labeling it. Are you certain it's not Big Bluestem instead? I remember a biologist at the college saying that the praire was full of the stuff. - RedWordSmith 17:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Praire grasses


 * Yeah, I think you're right. I'll see if I can't dig up a replacement, either by taking a new picture from the local area or from the same series of photographs. - RedWordSmith 06:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Could you please let me know what you think of the pictures at http://storysage.com/misosoup as a replacement? I just took them a few days ago. - RedWordSmith July 2, 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Hey, at this article, what is Group 2: Andropogonodae? Is group an official designation, like a "supertribe" or something? Forgive my ignorance. I was going to put a taxobox in at the tribe Andropogoneae article, but I don't think I'd know what to put as the designation for Andropogonodae. I'll do the taxobox, but I'll leave it out for now. --DanielCD 29 June 2005 00:09 (UTC)
 * Panicoideae

Interesting that Index Kewensis got it wrong (a proposal to conserve Carya illinoensis wouldn't have been rejected if that had been the original epithet). --Curtis Clark 29 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
 * Pecan

Hi MPF, Sorry, I'm completely useless at botany, I was hoping someone with those skills could help me out. --Fir0002 June 30, 2005 11:36 (UTC)
 * Fern photo

Sorry MPF, I'm no good at all with ferns. Tannin

Regarding the age of the oak tree at Stelmužė: Since the center of the tree is no longer solid, taking a core sample and counting rings cannot tell the age exactly. Articles I've read generally state that it's at least 1,500 y.o., but as many as 2,000. Here's a recent English-language one: [//nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(stelmuze)%20AND%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22stelmuze%22)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no] --Theodore Kloba July 1, 2005 16:58 (UTC)
 * Stelmužė
 * I've changed the description to a range of ages.--Theodore Kloba July 1, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

Hi MPF, I never relized that you didn't frequent the reference desk! I was wondering why you never replied to any of my unident photos (I knew that you had considerable knowledge in botany). Anyway, I'll do as you suggest and submit to the Tree of life project instead in the future. Thanks for your interest, --Fir0002 July 2, 2005 10:07 (UTC)
 * Re: Pics for Identification

I moved the discussion over to Talk:Apple because I really would like more than the two of us talking about this. Of course, if nobody cares then maybe it's not such an important point. -- WormRunner | Talk 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
 * Apple sections

Hi MPF, Just checking to make sure you knew that the brown bird in Image:MG_3938.jpg is bigger than an average seagull (unfortunately I don't have a photo comparison). --Fir0002 July 4, 2005 07:18 (UTC)
 * Pacific Gull Photo

The more I look at it, the less I'm sure about the picture on the Schinus article, which I also linked to an article on Brazilian Pepper. I'm very familiar with this tree in the Keys, and the leaf margins are always toothed or notched and the veins pretty prominent. The berries do look right.
 * Brazilian Pepper

I don't know about other Schinus species. Is there any chance this photo was misidentified? -- DavidH July 5, 2005 23:12 (UTC)


 * Don't bother checking again -- if it's a Florida photo, it has to be S. terebinthifolius -- unless the USGS mislabeled it. I don't know of any other Schinus in Florida. I see S. terebinthifolius every day, and it is somewhat variable (as well as a nasty, nasty plant), and like I said, the berries look right. Thanks for responding so quickly. DavidH

Hi Michael, I never realized that it would cause a problem, I use Mozilla Firefox and doing it that way works fine - pics on the RHS and text fitting nicely. So sorry, and I'll put in my photos in the way you suggest. By the way what browser are you using?
 * Re: Pic Positions

Peter --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 00:24 (UTC)


 * Did you try Mozilla or Firefox? Because I get those little drop down menu as well. You should really dump IE. There are so many cool extensions for firefox which help using wiki. Like if you type "wiki" in your address bar and then a word it will do a search in wikipedia. A similar thing is for the word "dict" but in this cas it looks up the word in dictionary.com. There's also tabbed browsing - unbelievably usefull. And you can open submit links in a new window with an extension (by submit links I mean like the search button in google, or wiki). It really is impossible to us IE after using Firfox for even a week. Hope you install! see you around wiki. Peter --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 12:17 (UTC)

The image is actually edited very very little - most of it is just by (deliberately) under-exposing the image. I took around 25 image over and over until I got one I liked though. Let me know if you want the whole sequence.
 * Image:Tree hadrian's wall.jpg

For the original check out Image:Tree hadrian's wall (original).JPG.

"Overdone cloud effects" indeed :) -- Tomhab 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

The etymology seems Ok to me - I read it years ago in my Taylor's garden encyclopedia and it is on the Web at: [://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/SoftwoodNA/htmlDocs/pinusstrobus.html] The root appears in "stroboscope" which used to be made with a light source interrupted by a rotating wheel or disk having holes, before electronic versions were available. If you look at the tree from below, you can see that the branches are attached in a spiral pattern, so that if you ran a canvas or plastic sheet upwards branch by branch you would construct a pattern like the blade of an auger (such as used to dig holes in the earth).
 * Pinus Strobus

Well I just ran into the link at random and wanted to be helpful, but if you are sure I'm wrong - sorry. I live near a U.S. forest service or wildlife test station in Laurel, MD and I also got them to fix the name on a very short street into the preserve that they had called "lobolly pine lane" - I am sure you know how it reads properly.Pdn 7 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. No problem. Pdn 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I looked in the Webster's Unabridged in the library and it said "strobilus", which originated in twists of yarn, is the root referring to cones, but it said (under "stroboscope") that strobos refers to whirling (of course, we have strobus not strobos, but anyway that's what I found). Pdn 00:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I changed the links.--Fanghong 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * About :zh:胡桃

Hi Ram-Man - nice start on Red Mulberry, unfortunately, the pics are White Mulberry (a widely naturalised invasive species throughout the eastern US); Red Mulberry leaves are not smooth and glossy like this, and are more heart-shaped at the base - MPF 12:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Red Mulberry


 * I don't mean to argue with you on this, but what should I go on in terms of authority. The tree was identified by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as part of a 48 tree identification project.  Now I suppose it is possible that they are wrong, but you would think as part of an educational project they would take the time to get it right.  But of course you might be some biologist who knows better.  Doing a simple google search for "Red Mulberry" leads to quite a few sites with pictures of the leaves and many of them are glossy.  If you can find a more authoritative source, I'd be happy to amend the pictures accordingly. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 19:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wondered if the tree specimen might possibly be a hybrid. I'll try to see what I can find.  I may be able to return to the park myself and feel the leaf to see if it feels at all fuzzy.  I suppose if it is a hybrid, it may not make a good specimen picture for either article. &mdash; Ram-Man ([://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new comment]) (talk) 20:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wow you don't hang a round. That's much better than a redirect. David D. 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cicuta

Just wanted to thank you for copyediting Silverweed and creating Argentina (genus). I didn't create Argentina (genus) myself because I wanted to have some material to put on it. Circeus 13:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks


 * I assumed Argentina (genus) was yours. Oh well. As for species, ITIS only gives anserina and egedii, but then I don't know if that would leave out other species. The GBIF isn't very helpful, confusing the plants and a fish genus in Osmeriformes, which will probably forces a Disambiguation page at Argentina (genus)

i do have a referenceto the fossle pollen comment, but from what youve just said, its impossible- i have been reading information with incorrect stuff again i guess (sigh)s for checking. My i havnt made a big contribution in awhile.
 * i do, but

thanks for letting me know that you moved the page! I know French better than I know common names of plants. I'll work on finishing out the translation as soon as I can. If you don't mind checking over the editing of my translation of the plant's appearance to make sure I'm not turning any technical terms into gibberish, I'd be grateful!Mamawrites 23:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * hare's foot clover

Hi MPF, thanks for your edvises. I'm not a biologist, so mistakes are possible. --uk:User:Gutsul
 * Gymnosperm

Hey again MPF. There's an article at Indian Berry with 2 binomial names, and I am having trouble identifying which is the right one or if they are obsolete or what. I put them as synonyms, but I'm not even sure of that. I wanted to put a category on it, but I was hoping you could sleuth it a bit when you get the time. --DanielCD 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indian Berry

I'm sure there must have been a source for Common Pied Oystercatcher, but I can't remeber what it was now, especially as I don't like the name. Feel free to change it (about 30 links though) jimfbleak 05:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oystercatcher

Sorry, I don't know enough about him to do an article now. Just that he did one of many translations of the Tao Te Ching, and the link from there went to the page with the tree. --Blainster 10:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Red Pine / Bill Porter

Laurisilva, Laurel forest Laurisilva and Laurel forest are not quite the same thing; perhaps I should work on making that clearer in the articles. Laurel forests occur worldwide, but the Laurisilva are a type of Laurel forest specific to Macaronesia. Tom Radulovich 01:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have only run across the term Laurisilva used in the context of Macaronesia, at least in English. My Spanish is pretty limited and my Portuguese nonexistent, but I haven't yet found the term applied to the laurel forests of Chile, for example. If we discover other uses of the term, we could note it in the article, or rename the Laurisilva article to make it specific to Macaronesia. Tom Radulovich 17:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering because some specis may occur on RED LIST but nont in CITES. Wich should i refer to for species status? Thanks Fledgeling 22:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the authority to refer to for species status?